NOTES FOR VISITORS: Welcome to the Alaska Outdoors Supersite forums! The contents of our forums are viewable by anyone, and may be read by clicking the forum headings below. To post in the forums, you must register at THIS LINK. To upgrade or change your membership, please login and select Upgrade > Supporting Membership. Your account will now be managed separately from the forum system. Forum login is separate from account management but shares the same username and password.

IMPORTANT: If you cannot log-in, please reset your password using our new 6 character format through THIS LINK and click Forgot Password. An email message with a reset link will be sent to your email address.

It identifies the problem of low Chinook abundance as a management problem, not one of habitat, despite all of the evidence that points to low marine survival.

It suggests treating all Chinook stocks as stocks of concern.

It suggests that Jack Kings are not considered valuable to the reproduction of this resource and that we should not count Jacks as spawning Kings, even thought Jacks do indeed reproduce and there is no proof that age at maturity is a purely hereditary trait.

It suggests that statewide we have experienced "25 years of progressive 'losses'" of chinook.

In addition to the above, here are a few things that this proposal got wrong:

It listed four rivers, and very selectively chose to average escapements from three different time periods in an attempt to illustrate that King returns have been declining over time. The four rivers listed were the Karluk, Situk, Nushagak, and Kenai. In addition to getting all of the escapement data from the Kenai wrong, this proposal also got the Karluk EG wrong. It is 55,000-120,000. Perhaps the biggest 'error' however, is that both the Kenai and Nushagak rivers experienced several years of VERY strong escapements in the last decade - in fact the returns in the mid 2000's were RECORDS for both rivers. Unfortunately, these years were omitted from the averages, as they would not have shown the long-term declining trend that it is seeking to fabricate.

The proposal also suggests that we are 'managing for Sockeye escapements at the expense of Chinook'. At a time when the Kenai Sockeye SEG and inriver goal have likey been exceeded for the last two years, and the Kasilof BEG exceeded last year, and northern bound sockeye stocks suffered as well, all for the achievement of the King escapement goals (which were made handily), nothing could be further from the truth.

I am still surprised that there is no analysis of proposals in the BoF process. It makes it possible for anything proposed to be selected for management, even if the facts are not checked by an independant third party with proper training. Seems like there is a step missing.